tv [untitled] January 15, 2012 2:31pm-3:01pm PST
with debt funding, there will be rate increases that you have to anticipate. that is where we left it. usually when you present the budget, each would present the budget on their capital program. thank you. "we will be giving you more information and you can see some dollar amounts and the percentage of rate increases. >> thank you. i think what i would be interested in knowing is based on proposition be, is it $248 million? >> over three years.
the decisions are being made i would assume almost immediately and i would be interested in knowing because you would like to prioritize. there would be a reason to start somewhere rather than somewhere else. i would like to know how that would take place and how that is taking place and whether we have sufficient influence to try to guide the process or if there is some kind of bureaucratic issue that may be would be the subject matter of a conversation that took place in the future. can you develop on the decision making process as it relates to putting that money to work? >> there is a list of streets that they have laid out over the next three years.
there is a city process that was involved in the discussion about how we coordinate. we set up the task force to sit down. we have been met once too hopefully come to a conclusion that we can coordinate our activities together. we have the year one list that we want to do. we want to look at this your replacements. we're looking at their perspective. these look like we can coordinate on it. that discussion is going on. we can go back on how that is working and it really is a coordination effort. >> they have criteria and maps. >> should we assume that
decisions that we are preparing to make it through the budget process would be contingent on, will we be directed? >> the department of public works will be doing the maps. >> the real issue is that they will pay of those streets anyway. the issue is that if they are doing 60 miles, we try to get 6 miles done or will we get 12 done? they will do with or without us. >> if you were to improve the budget with the goal, and if we can have the cost paid for by the bond, we save that money and we can actually stretch the amount of miles. that is our ultimate goal.
>> we have plenty that we can choose from. >> we have already kind of moved some things around. >> with respect -- which employees would be doing the paving? would this be employees of the puc order at -- or would this be contract it out? >> this is a combination of the public works employees which would be the early people involved in it. there would be contracts out for the remainder. >> let's take a one block, for example. it is safe to assume that we would issue the contract and go through that process and then
the later on top would be a separate contract. conceivably, we would save the money that we have to come up with to pave over those picks. >> in some cases, one contract for all of it. we have a working on that kind of thing where we issue one contract and they do the underlying work and the repaving. >> this has been a policy for quite some time. if we have to take up the street, everyone should be working down in the trenches at the same time so there is not the cost of repeating. >> at the same time you want to accelerate your programs.
>> the policy of working together, that is out there. the discussion about how do we catch up. we have had the discussion for many years. we have 900 miles of sewer mains. they have a hundred your life. that is crazy. we had this discussion for water for years. we have started to make movements and getting smarter about replacements. also to be able to pick it up. really, how much are you willing to do to to get from 6 miles to 15? that is a big increase in street disruption and also a big increase. the idea of debt verses cash, typically if you are building a building.
those that will for it over th. it makes perfect sense to issue the debt. people who benefit over 30 years get the results. every year, they will spend the money. the assumption is that it will be an expense every single year. because we're in the situation we're in, we are already debt financing. will this be our new financing? will we want to get back into cash funding? those are part of the discussions we are looking at now. >> in terms of writing at the conclusion -- are writing -- in terms of arriving at the conclusion, the cost to us per
mile is that much less over the course of the three years? >> the assumption in the city's plan is that this three-year bonding for the streets is also a bridge that during those three years we will identify a funding source that will allow us to continue with that level of street repair for a longer time. those too not answer all of the questions about the street needs and the city but there has been no identified funding source. we're on the road to identify what that would be to keep that pace going. >> part of the challenge, as i recall, is that you have an age of sioux were out there and part of the problem is that be -- is that if we had installed these at a regular rate and replace them at a number of year it
would make sense. -- part of the challenge, as i recall, is that you have the age of sewer out there. it really does put you into a thing that if you always put in the same amount, you would have been replacing fairly young pipe for a while. as far as shaping our response to that, it looks as though we are doing a round up and we are hoping that there will be a ramp down. have looked at different approaches and seen what the cost impact is? for example, if you started out now with everything -- you know, it just went to 20 miles a year -- you know, that would be very
expensive right now. what would that do to the total cost for life cycle cost? >> we have not run those sort of scenarios, but we can. i think what you're talking about is this big infusion over five years, a really high rate of replacement. we can look at that. we can look at rate impacts, but a few years down the road, it creates the same problems you have again. >> the impact is what other factors are there? if suddenly they sunset was torn up for five years, that would not be the right answer, either, but i would like to know what the constraining factors are and whether this kind of response is the most effective and cost- effective. >> ok, we brought it to you today to get your thinking about
it, and we will be talking about it more in the budget discussion. commissioner moran: thank you very much. public comment? ok, none? if you would call the next item. >> next item is item 11, discussion of possible action to approve either pedestrian lighting policy number one, number two, or number three, and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to implement the pedestrian lighting policy. >> i am here in part today because the border supervisors recently adopted the better streets plan, which promotes the installation of pedestrian lighting in san francisco's streets. we are here in the interest of having you provide us with guidance on what our role should be in supporting the better streets plan. historically, there has been ambiguity in the charter and coat over the responsibility
among city agencies for pedestrian writing. what i have before you today are three options. we recommend option 1, which would have the puc responsible for pedestrians lighting in city streets. i can go through briefly for you the alternatives. i am putting a slide down, so if you could please. the first option, which is, as i say, the option that we recommend, is full responsibility on the part of the puc for lighting, where we would be responsible not only for providing the power, but also for the operation and
maintenance of the lighting that is installed. policy two would have us have the latest catch, where we are only responsible for providing power -- the lightest touch. policy 3 would be a mix of the two. we would continue operating and maintaining the lights currently on the street, but we would accept no future additional role on pedestrian lighting. under the second option where we would only be providing power, we will have to step back and unwind the responsibility for the 390 lights we currently have and find a new home agency for operations and maintenance of those lights. commissioner moran ask a question about the cost impacts of the three policy options. this slide gives you a sense of
that. you can see with the 398 lights that we currently own, we are incurring a little over $24,000 a year in operations and maintenance costs. if we continue to have a role in pedestrian lighting and maintenance operations, we anticipate after 10 years of that policy, that that $25,000 would increase to about $37,000. it is not a large cost burden. it strictly operations and maintenance. we expect the annual maintenance cost per like to go down as led lighting technologies are deployed in all the new pedestrian lighting applications. with policy one, it would be very clear that we are the agency you go to if you are a developer putting in a new
residential condominium tower. we are the agency you go to to find out what is allowed in the streets for lighting. that means we control the energy efficiency. we control the overall look. it would be just another option in our streetlight catalog for what kind of pedestrian lining would also be available to developers has the better streets program rolls out. with that abbreviated presentation, given all the material you have, i would be happy to answer any questions. commissioner moran: do you have the table in printed form? our screens are bouncing all over the place. >> i only have this one, which i am happy to hand to you is that is constructive for your conversation. commissioner moran: for clarification, up on the tv
monitors -- >> mine is not. >> - ok. -- mind is ok. >> we are blessed somehow. commissioner moran: is pedestrian likening -- is pedestrian lighting located in a public right of way? it does not include all the lighting in golden gate park? >> correct. >> it does not include that. it does not include whatever lighting there may be in dolores park. >> correct. those would stay with their current operators. commissioner moran: if there is a private development that has a wall way that they have chosen to light on their properties, it would not include that as well?
>> correct. it would build off of what the city's public works code defines as a street. i will just put that definition up. it is slide 5 in your packet, and it is also inside the agenda item itself, but that is the definition. public areas between property lines. >> what is pushing us in this direction? >> it is really the better streets plan. it clearly says the expectation is when streets will -- when streets are being improved, they will include a pedestrian lighting component. one of the most efficient ways of implementing that is to incorporate the pedestrian light on existing street light poles. so you are relying on the same circuitry. the difficulties we would have
to arrange for compensation under a scenario where someone else is -- some other agency is responsible for pedestrian lighting and we remain responsible for street lights, it would be very complicated to figure out how to arrange for adequate compensation of the use of the street light poles when a pedestrian light is being coal located on it, for example. even if the same poll is not being used, the same circuits will probably be used. we will have a role in this pedestrian lighting program that the city has endorsed in the better streets program. the question is -- what should that role be? the most efficient approach is to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of pedestrian lighting. >> commissioners, typically for this dollar amount, we probably would not have even bothered you
with it, but we did bring this to your attention several months ago. we were talking about the pedestrian lighting at the fillmore jazz area, and we got the indication that maybe you did not want to go down this path. by giving you the information about the fair the minimal amount of money we're talking about and how it fits into the larger picture, we wanted to come back and revisit that. commissioner moran: is that a redevelopment project considered public right of way? >> yes. >> that is one where if we had been more involved in the beginning, we probably would have had them put differently. >> the redevelopment situation -- is that expanding our potential reach on this? >> i thought that was the context under which we had the conversation before, was the uncertainty. >> there were other items that
were not part of redevelopment with it were ready to turn the lights over to us, and we wondered if we should accept them. that was clearly one of the issues. fillmore jazz festival will development issue was going to happen whether or not the entire redevelopment issue in california change because that redevelopment area closed down anyway. >> you indicated that there was a thought about what the alternative was. what is the alternative agency for responsibility of these lights? >> it is not clear. typically, if it is a redevelopment-sponsored project, redevelopment manages the pedestrian lighting component and looks to hand it to a city agency. they are looking to hand the existing pedestrian let's, as
the general manager mentioned, to us, and we have said no because we have not received the guidance we need from you on that question. another potential candidate department would be dpw because they are otherwise responsible for aspects of the street. >> i have read through all these options, and it seems in the interest of efficiency and decision-making and being able -- consistency of look and feel -- it just makes the most sense for pc to take this on. i mean, the cost is so minimal. with that, i would like to make a motion to approve lighting policy 1. >> second. commissioner moran: i will just
add one comment to that, and that is that it does not directly relate, but for years, we have been providing power for free for street lights. as part of our new rate that we adopted, we will be collecting some revenue from that. half a cent. there is a little give and a little take at the same time. motion and a second. >> we have no speaker cards. commissioner moran: any other public comment? any other commission,? all those in favor? oppose? the motion carries. >> the next item is closed session. if you will make a motion to assert attorney-client privilege and invite public comment on any agenda item, and then i will read them before we
retired a closed session, should that be approved. commissioner moran: can i have a motion? moved and seconded. all those in favor? motion carries. >> we have no speaker cards. let me briefly read the adams pier 14, a threat to public services or facilities, consultation with agency chief of security. conference with legal counsel, existing litigation as defendant, pacific states environmental contractors versus city and county of san francisco. we will now retire into closed session. if people will clear the room please. commissioner moran: could i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion not to disclose.
>> second. commissioner moran: moved and seconded not to disclose. any discussion? public comment? all those in favor? the motion carries. >> unless there is any additional new business by any commissioners at this point, i believe there is no other business for the commission. commissioner moran: do we have any new business? >> any word on grant's trial? commissioner moran: no news there yet. ok, then, thank you. this meeting is adjourned.
>> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your cellular phone or personal digital assistant. knowing their arrival time of the bus allows riders the choice of waiting for it or perhaps doing some shopping locally or
getting a cup of coffee. it also gives a greater sense that they can count on you to get to their destination on time. the next bus our arrival information is also transmitted to bus shelters around the city equipped with the next bus sign. riders are updated strictly about arrival times. to make this information available, muni has tested push to talk buttons at trial shelters. rider when pushes the button, the text is displayed -- when a rider pushes the button. >> the success of these tests led to the expansion of the program to all stations on the light rail and is part of the new shelter contract, push to talk will be installed. check out the new technology
making your right easier every day >> the meeting is being called order. please turn off yourself funds and put them on silent. we would like to take an opportunity to thank sf gov tv for all of their constant support. roll call. commissioner adams: here. commissioner clyde: here. commissioner dooley: here. president o'brien: here. commissioner o'connor: here. commissioner riley: here.